IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE10H DAY OF JANUARY201420TH POUSHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 962 of 2014 (U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------- 1. P.C.MATHEWS, S/O.CHERIYAN, PLACKIYIL HOUSE, PERUMBAIKKAD, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
2. LEELAMMA, W/O.CHERIYAN, PLACKIYIL HOUSE, PERUMBAIKKAD, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS, KOTTAYAM-1, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE SECRETARY, THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS, KOTTAYAM-1. 3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS, KOTTAYAM-1. R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1001-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 962 of 2014 (U) A P P E N D I X PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3955/79 DATED2112.1979 OF S.R.O, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2751/I/1992 DT.9.10.92 OF S.R.O, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN OF THE PROPERTIES. EXT.P3: TRUE PHOTOGRAPGHS OF THE PROPERTIES COVERED BY EXT.P1 AND P1 (a) SALE DEEDS. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.19.12.13 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.6048/13 DT.6.12.13 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUMBAIKAD. EXT.P5(a): TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.6049/13 DT.6.12.13 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUMBAIKAD. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
BEARING NO.PW3/PW7 KPW1-BA-296/13-14 DT.2.1.14 ISSUED BY THE3D RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
DT.6.11.13 IN WPC.26555/2013. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
DT.27.11.12 IN WPC.28126/12(M). /TRUE COPY/ P.S TO JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
----------------------------------------------------- W.P(c) No.962 of 2014-U ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th January, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P6 order of the 3rd respondent rejecting their application for a development permit to construct a residential building in their property. Their application has been rejected on the ground that the land in question is described as paddy field in the Revenue records and therefore no permission could be granted to construct a residential building over the same.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the ground on which Ext.P6 has been issued is unsustainable. It is contended that, there has been no land acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to the D.T.P Scheme that is said to be applicable to the Municipality. In the light of the law laid down by the apex court, rejection of the petitioners' request on the said ground is therefore unsustainable. Therefore, they seek the issue of appropriate orders setting aside Ext.P6. W.P(c) No.962 of 2014-U23. Advocate Philip J.Vettickattu appears for the respondents.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, though the property has been described as paddy field in the records, at present the same is remaining as house plot or filled up land. Exhibit P3 photographs are relied upon to support the above contention. Therefore, he seeks the issue of appropriate orders for setting aside Ext.P6.
5. Having considered the rival contentions of the contesting parties, it has to be held that Ext.P6, is unsustainable. It has been held by this Court that it is not the description of a land in the records that is decisive, but the present state of the land. A perusal of Ext.P6 does not show that the authority had taken any steps to verify the present condition of the land. For the above reasons, Ext.P6 is set aside. A perusal of Ext.P3 photographs would also show that the petitioners' property is a fully developed garden land. This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the application for Development Permit submitted by the petitioners afresh, after conducting an inspection of the petitioners' land in order to verify whether the land W.P(c) No.962 of 2014-U3continues to be a paddy field and thereafter, to pass appropriate orders on the application in accordance with law. Appropriate orders as indicated above shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/ (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/